Matthew’s Gospel In Outline Form

There are multiple ways to outline Matthew’s Gospel.  One way is to follow the form of a suzerain covenant,  Here is another approach from an application of that approach, keeping in mind that the temptation narrative itself follows the form of a suzerain covenant.  I. Matthew 1 - 3  : Introduction The author/authors introduce us to Yeshua via a gematria laden eschatological genealogy, a very brief birth narrative, a note about Yeshua’s ascent into manhood, & His baptism by John the Baptist that ends in a theophany. II. Matthew 4  : Prophet, Priest, King   Each of the 3 temptations highlights one of Yeshua’s 3 offices —- Prophet, Priest, & King, in that order. This provides the narrative framework (ie outline) for the remainder of the Gospel. Yeshua calls His disciples, essentially putting together a school of highly prophetic people who would serve as functional levites ministering to the poor, the sick & infirm, the marginalized, even Rom...
Post a Comment

Translation Onlyism 1 - Matthew 17:21 & John 1:42

According to Stephen Gil, the ESV omits Matthew 17:21.   In addition, he assert that the ESV compilers are aware that the KJV uses “Jona”to refer to Simon’s father & that their choice to use “John” instead of “Jona” results in a contradiction with itself use elsewhere in the Gospels, & they are just fine with that.

By way of reply…

The ESV does **NOT** remove Matt. 17:21.    I’m sitting here with it open to that text, & there’s a footnote that includes the text of 17:21 & the reason it isn’t in the main published ESV text.  

Exactly which members of the ESV compilers say that they are copacetic with the Bible contradicting itself?  That sound like little more than KJVOnlyist propaganda.   Is that what the NIV, NASB Committee & others’ say?   

From a Continuationist perspective, “John” & “Jona”refer to the same individual & one name (Jona) emphasizes the referent’s character & connection to “Dove/Peace,” & the other (John) emphasizes the referent’ s character & connection to God’s grace & mercy.

The KJV comes to us from the 17th Century AD/CE from a time in which English speaking people’s needed to be reminded that God is a God who prefers peace over war.   They were living in a warlike age.     The ESV comes to us from a time in which the Gospel of works righteousness was & is still at work among us.  We live in an age in which the love & mercy of many has grown cold.   We need to reminded that we need more John inn our lives.    Same person —- different perspective —- no contradiction.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

City Of God Study Module 2

            ✨ 👑 GALLIFREY 👑✨                       EDISON/ADONAI                           CAMBRIDGE BASTILLE & PLUME     SAGACITY & THORN                            Zodiac ICONOCLASTS LAW & ORDER         Bishop     Vanity Fair          Forge      Toymaker    Archibaptrix     Chameleon         Enigma     Governess         Corsair       Jodpurs         Sextant       Dauphin       Carnevale       Libertine           Arsenal                  Mosaic  ...
Read more

On “A Christian Defense of Real Marriage”

The Christian Post article is here .  In the view of mainstream culture today, there is no such thing as a principled case for the Christian view of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Opposition to same-sex marriage, in this view, can only spring from bigotry, hate, or fear.    It can also spring from recognition that the defenders of traditional marriage do so on shaky biblical grounds, insofar as their defense of the traditional view of marriage proceeds from poor biblical hermeneutics & unsound reasoning principles.     For example, Robert Gagnon writes: By “against nature” Paul meant that the evidence from the material structures of creation—here the complementary embodied character of maleness and femaleness—gives clear evidence of God’s will for human sexual pairing. Some have argued that this could not have been what Paul intended by his nature argument, despite Paul’s clear statement in Rom 1:19-20 that such matters are “transpare...
Read more